Comparative advertising in the supermarket sector
Court of Amsterdam
The court of Amsterdam recently ruled on comparative advertising in the supermarket sector. Dirk van den Broek presented himself in advertisements by stating that it would be 20% cheaper than Albert Heijn. There is regular competition in the sector on price, both by supermarket organizations themselves and by franchisees in the supermarket sector against their direct competitors in the area. However, it is often overlooked that comparative advertising is legally subject to very strict rules. Products should therefore not simply be compared with each other. Sizes, weights, qualities and composition must be exactly the same in order to be able to apply a proper comparison. As a rule, this means that only A-brands can be compared and the comparison of the so-called house brands often ends up with deviations in composition, quantity, quality of packaging, et cetera. In that case, the court is obliged to apply the law, which also happened in the case that Albert Heijn brought against Dirk van den Broek. The claim for rectification was therefore granted by the court. The foregoing shows that comparative advertising is indeed permitted, but it goes without saying that no apples can be compared with oranges. All this is quite strict and must meet strict legal requirements.
Mr J. Sterk – Franchise lawyer
Ludwig & Van Dam Franchise attorneys, franchise legal advice Would you like to respond? Mail to strong @ludwigvandam.nl
Other messages
The (in)validity of a post-contractual non-competition clause in a franchise agreement: analogy with employment law?
On 5 September 2017, the District Court of Gelderland, ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2017:4565, rendered a judgment on, among other things, the question of whether Bruna, as a franchisor, could invoke the prohibition for a
Column Franchise+ – mr. J Sterk: “Court orders fast food chain to extend franchise agreement
The case is set to begin this year. For years, the franchisee has been refusing to sign the new franchise agreement that was offered with renewal, as it would lead to a deterioration of his legal position
Not a valid non-compete clause for franchisee
On 18 November 2016, the interim relief judge of the Central Netherlands District Court, ECLI:NL:RBMNE:2016:7754, rendered a judgment in the issue concerning whether the franchisee was held
Franchise & Law No. 5 – Acquisition Fraud and Franchising Act
The Acquisition Fraud Act came into effect on 1 July 2016. This includes amendments to Section 6:194 of the Dutch Civil Code.
Does a franchisee have to accept a new model franchise agreement?
On 31 March 2017, the District Court of Rotterdam, ECLI:NL:RBROT:2017:2457, ruled in interlocutory proceedings on the question whether franchisor Bram Ladage had complied with the franchise agreement with its franchisee.
Mandatory (market-based) purchase prices for franchisees
To what extent can a franchisor change agreements about the (market) purchase prices of the goods that the franchisees are obliged to purchase?